Environment Committee on Dec. 11th, 2024

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Heald, this will be for you.

The Liberals have introduced a national program for ecological corridors without consulting landowners or land users. The government claimed that this program was needed to connect protected areas.

However, there are many valid concerns that this is a backdoor attempt to restrict land use and access. I personally have concerns about the program, especially because it's run by Parks Canada.

Does your organization have any concerns about the national program for ecological corridors that this committee should be aware of?

[Chris Heald]

For sure. I mean, it's fitting into the same mould. We're not consulting with people that live and breathe on the ground. We're not talking to them. We are making decisions in Ottawa, Toronto or Vancouver.

Again, we're the oldest conservation organization in Manitoba. We were not consulted. We were not invited to the announcement, and neither were the landowners: It was only the groups that support the federal government's direction. We are being excluded.

We do have concerns, because we know where it's going to lead to. Without having a seat at the table and being part of discussions, of course we have concerns.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Do you have any reason to believe that the government's ecological corridor program is an attempt to restrict land use and land access?

[Chris Heald]

For sure. When you turn management over to Parks Canada, to indigenous protected areas or to different control mechanisms that are not by elected officials, how is there any accountability?

We are being excluded. The true conservationists—hunters, fishers, trappers and anglers on the ground—are being excluded from any of these discussions.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

The most vocal supporters of Bill C-73 appear to be environmental activist groups that don't support land use or development. I think of organizations like Ecojustice, the David Suzuki Foundation and Greenpeace. Do you have anything to say about this?

[Chris Heald]

I mean, again, they don't support sustainable use of the resource. They don't support hunting and fishing by licensed hunters or anglers, so of course we have a concern. The government is only leaning on one side of the equation. They're not taking everybody's feelings and thoughts into account, so of course—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Next is Ms. Taylor Roy.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I know the time is short.

Ms. Gue, I'd like to direct my question to you. Perhaps this bill doesn't go far enough in some of the goal setting, but it has a lot of really important things in it, and I think you would agree. I'm just wondering about the trade-off between getting this bill through and putting in all of these different amendments.

In particular, when you're talking about setting the specific goals, my feeling is that it will take a lot of consultation. As you know, on the accountability part, the federal government has been having difficulty delivering on the targets, because obviously we have multi-jurisdictional government. We do not have jurisdiction over many things.

Could you talk a bit about the importance of getting this act through now? Also, I suppose, how can we address some of the things you've raised after it passes? Is that possible and is it important to get this done?

[Lisa Gue]

I might invite my co-panellist, Joshua Ginsberg, to add on the specific issue of the amendments he's suggesting for strengthening the target-setting portion of the bill.

I fully sympathize with the dilemma in front of you, Ms. Taylor Roy. However, I must respectfully reject the premise of the question. I do believe—I do dare to hope—that both are possible.

As I stated in my opening comments, we are asking MPs and Parliament to expedite the second reading debate and vote on this bill so that it can come to committee for strengthening amendments. I hope the committee will work together to find a path forward that enables a stronger version of this legislation to pass.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Madame Pauzé is next.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Ms. Johnston, in your remarks, you said that the government is good at making big speeches about nature, but not good enough at taking action. You also said that the act was not a true accountability act.

Let's talk about investment. Let's talk about money. Shouldn't more resources be earmarked for protecting nature? Next Monday, Minister Freelandwill table her economic update. Do you hope to see something meaningful in this economic update, that is to say the resources needed to protect nature?

[Anna Johnston]

I'm sorry that I can't answer in French.

I can't speak to what the government will do next week, but I certainly hope that the fall economic statement will include a commitment to a renewal of nature funding, because you're right: It's absolutely critical that there is the money to implement the important protections that we hope to achieve for nature.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

How important do you think the nature advisory committee is? What would make it more effective?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have 30 seconds.

[Anna Johnston]

I think the advisory committee is absolutely critical. We need to get that independent expert advice before the federal government and also make sure that it's in front of the public. That's part of one of the cornerstones of accountability: being able to compare what the government is doing against what experts are saying needs to be done, and to make sure that it's efficient and effective.

When we look at the example of the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada under the Species at Risk Act, what has made it really effective is its ability to set its own terms of reference—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Collins, you have the floor.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to try to squeeze in two questions.

The first is a yes-or-no question for each panellist. You can say yes, no or pass.

Between 2020 and 2023, the percentage of Canadian areas designated as “protected” or covered by “other effective conservation measures” increased by just one per cent, from 12.5% to 13.6%. This raises serious concerns.

Do you think Canada is on track to meet its nature commitments?

I'll start with Ms. Gue.

[Lisa Gue]

No, and that's why we need this bill.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

That's great.

In the room, Chair, can you indicate the next...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The next what...? I'm sorry....

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I'm sorry.

Mr. Ginsberg, do you want to go next?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Mr. Ginsberg.

[Joshua Ginsberg]

Thank you.

No, we're not on track. This bill will help.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Johnston is next.

[Anna Johnston]

I echo what Mr. Ginsberg said.